Summary of "Train Wreck at the Supreme Court" Episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz

Release Date: July 10, 2020

In the episode titled "Train Wreck at the Supreme Court," host Michael Knowles engages in a robust discussion with Senator Ted Cruz about a series of concerning Supreme Court decisions that have surfaced over the past two weeks. The conversation delves into the implications of these rulings, the role of Chief Justice John Roberts, and the broader impacts on conservative jurisprudence and American society.

1. Introduction to Supreme Court Controversies

The episode opens with Michael Knowles highlighting the recent setbacks for conservatives within the Supreme Court. He notes that three significant court cases resulted in losses for conservative positions, setting a concerning trend.

Knowles [00:00]: "Conservatives lost three important court cases this week. We will get into all of them with a man who knows a thing or two about the law and the Supreme Court."

Senator Ted Cruz concurs, expressing deep disappointment over what he describes as "disastrous" and "lawless" decisions by the court, despite a rare positive outcome.

Cruz [01:09]: "The last two weeks have been a train wreck at the supreme court. We had three disastrous decisions, lawless decisions. We actually had one good decision, so we're batting 250. But three decisions that were just horrendous and deeply disappointing."

2. Overview of the Affected Cases

Michael Knowles outlines the three pivotal cases:

1. Ostock v. Clayton County – A transgender rights case.
2. June Medical Services v. Russo – An abortion-related case in Louisiana.
3. Espinosa v. Montana Department of Revenue – A school choice case.

Additionally, Senator Cruz brings up the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) case, which adds to the week's troubling decisions.

3. Detailed Analysis of Each Case

a. DACA Case

Senator Cruz provides a critical examination of the DACA case, highlighting the Supreme Court's controversial stance on the administration's reversal of Obama's executive action on immigration.

Cruz [02:15]: "In this case, all nine justices, not a single justice, disputes that Obama's executive amnesty was illegal and contrary to federal immigration law."

He criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts for siding with liberal justices, effectively nullifying the Trump administration's efforts to revoke DACA.

Cruz [04:43]: "The court literally ordered Trump keep breaking the law because Obama broke the law. Like it's asinine."

b. June Medical Services v. Russo

This abortion case involved a Louisiana statute requiring doctors performing abortions to have hospital licenses within 30 miles to ensure the safety of the procedure. The Supreme Court struck down this law, overturning a similar 2016 Texas decision.

Cruz [06:25]: "Virtually identical statute and five, four the Supreme Court strikes down the Louisiana statute and John Roberts, who had been a dissenter, magically flips over to the majority..."

Cruz laments Chief Justice Roberts' shift from his previous dissenting position, attributing it to the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedent).

Cruz [07:56]: "...stare decisis tends to be almost always a one way ratchet that you have justices who call themselves conservative and they will respect stare decisis for left wing, lawless, unconstitutional decisions."

c. Bostock v. Clayton County

This Civil Rights Act case expanded the interpretation of "sex" discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The court's decision was 6-3, with justices like Neil Gorsuch joining the liberal majority.

Cruz [10:20]: "They added to the civil rights laws sexual orientation and gender identity…we’re just gonna change the laws."

He criticizes the court for overstepping by effectively legislating from the bench without Congressional approval, leading to potential widespread litigation.

Cruz [12:59]: "The Supreme Court is saying that anytime you have the words because of sex, it means because of sexual orientation or because of gender identity. So you're going to have all sorts of instances…that is policy making from the bench."

d. Espinosa v. Montana Department of Revenue

While briefly mentioned, Cruz acknowledges this case as the sole positive outcome amidst the week's rulings. It involved Montana's scholarship tax credit for private and religious schools, which the court upheld, reversing the state's Blaine Amendment.

Cruz [16:40]: "The Supreme Court concluded 5, 4, that it violated the Constitution to discriminate against religious schools."

He highlights the historical context of the Blaine Amendments, rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment, and commends the decision for protecting religious liberty.

4. The Role of Chief Justice John Roberts

A central theme of the discussion is Chief Justice Roberts' unexpected alignment with liberal justices, undermining conservative judicial strategies.

Cruz [08:42]: "John Roberts is the new Sandra Day O'Connor. John Roberts has become terrible, the quintessential swing vote in the middle..."

Senator Cruz expresses frustration over Roberts' perceived inconsistency and his ability to sway decisions even on key conservative issues, thereby weakening the conservative influence on the court.

Cruz [24:13]: "...the Bush White House decided they didn't want that fight, that Roberts would be an easier confirmation."

5. Implications for Conservative Legal Strategy

The conversation moves to the broader impact of these decisions on the conservative legal movement. Cruz argues that the appointment strategies have backfired by favoring easily confirmed nominees over staunch constitutionalists.

Cruz [23:55]: "We've got to have presidents willing to take the heat to actually nominate proven constitutionalist judges."

He underscores the necessity of nominating candidates with strong, unwavering records to ensure long-term conservative jurisprudence.

6. Checks and Balances on the Supreme Court

Addressing listener concerns, Cruz outlines the constitutional checks on the Supreme Court, emphasizing impeachment and Congressional limitations on the court's jurisdiction.

Cruz [25:59]: "One check is impeachment. That is the House of Representatives can bring impeachment proceedings and the Senate can vote to convict them."

He references Marbury v. Madison to illustrate the foundational interplay between the branches of government and the establishment of judicial review.

Cruz [28:38]: "He simply concludes we, the Supreme Court don't have the jurisdiction that Congress purported to give us in this particular statute."

7. Conclusion and Hope for the Future

Despite the grim outlook presented by the recent Supreme Court decisions, Cruz offers a glimmer of hope through potential legislative and executive actions to counteract judicial overreach.

Cruz [25:25]: "...there are some checks on the Supreme Court if they were to make a really bad decision."

He remains cautiously optimistic that constitutional mechanisms can restore balance, though acknowledging the challenges ahead.

Key Takeaways

• Conservative Setbacks: Three major Supreme Court decisions have negatively impacted conservative legal objectives, with only one favorable ruling.

• Chief Justice Roberts' Influence: Roberts' shift toward the liberal side in key cases like DACA and June Medical Services raises concerns about the court's future leanings.

• Judicial Overreach: The expansion of civil rights to include sexual orientation and gender identity without legislative approval is viewed as an overstep by the court.

• Need for Strategic Nominations: Emphasizing the importance of nominating well-qualified, principled conservative justices to ensure long-term judicial influence.

• Constitutional Remedies: While there are checks on the Supreme Court, such as impeachment and jurisdictional limits, their practical application remains complex and uncertain.

Notable Quotes

• On DACA:

  Cruz [04:43]: "The court literally ordered Trump keep breaking the law because Obama broke the law. Like it's asinine."

• On Stare Decisis:

  Cruz [07:56]: "...stare decisis tends to be almost always a one way ratchet that you have justices who call themselves conservative and they will respect stare decisis for left wing, lawless, unconstitutional decisions."

• On Bostock v. Clayton County:

  Cruz [10:20]: "We're just gonna change the laws. And one of the problems with this is... we're just gonna legislate them."

• On Supreme Court Checks:

  Cruz [25:59]: "One check is impeachment. That is the House of Representatives can bring impeachment proceedings and the Senate can vote to convict them."

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz presents a critical examination of recent Supreme Court decisions from a conservative perspective, highlighting the challenges faced by the Republican legal movement and emphasizing the need for strategic judicial appointments to safeguard constitutional principles.